A common creationist claim is that humans existed alongside or
predated all of their presumed ancestors in the fossil record.
Taylor (1992) contains a long list of supposed examples, and
Bowden (1981) discusses a number of them in more detail.

Many of these cases are hominid fossils which appear in the correct
position in the fossil record. Some of these are discussed elsewhere on
this site: Petralona, ER 1470, the Turkana Boy, and
the Krapina specimens. Other examples
are:

Laetoli
footprints: according to most creationists, these are modern human
footprints that are dated at 3.7 million years ago, long before
humans were meant to exist. Creationists emphasize the close
resemblance between these and modern human footprints, but often
neglect to mention their extremely small size and the fact they
may also be similar to the feet of the australopithecines living
at the same time. Exactly how similar they are is a matter of
some debate.

Tuttle (1990) thinks the footprints are too human-like to belong to
A. afarensis, and suggests they may belong to another species of
australopithecine, or an early species of Homo. Johanson, who has
often said that Lucy was fully adapted to a modern style of bipedality,
claims (Johanson and Edgar 1996) that the A. afarensis foot bones
found at Hadar, when scaled down to an individual of Lucy's size, fit the
prints perfectly. Stern and Susman (1983), who have argued that Lucy's
foot and locomotion were bipedal but not yet fully human-like, believe that the
footprints show subtle differences from human prints and could have been
made by afarensis. Clarke (1999) believes that the Laetoli tracks
could have been made by feet very similar to those of the new
australopithecine fossil Stw 573.

In short, there is a wide range of opinions about the nature of the
footprints and whether A. afarensis could have made them.
Most creationists usually cite only Tuttle, whose conclusions they find
most convenient. The most honest conclusion, for now, is to admit that
although no-one can be entirely sure what made the Laetoli footprints,
it seems quite likely that they belonged to australopithecines.

KP 271: Lubenow (1992)
states that this lower humerus is indistinguishable from a human bone,
Parker and Morris (1982) state that it is a human bone. Lubenow quotes a
number of scientists who state that KP 271 is very humanlike. He does not
quote from Feldesman (1982), who found that KP 271, "far from being more
'human-like' than Australopithecus, clearly associates with the
hyperrobust Australopithecines from Lake Turkana".

KP 271 has usually been assigned to the australopithecines
(and recently to A. anamensis) because no other hominids
are known from 4 million years ago.

Although Lubenow considers this conclusion
"shocking", there are plausible reasons for it. The
lower humerus of chimps is very similar to that of humans, and it
is reasonable to suppose that australopithecines would be even
more similar, especially since the upper end of the humerus in
australopithecines is known to fall within the human
range. Patterson and Howells (1967) state that both KP
271 and an australopithecine upper humerus were, based on their
measurements, virtually identical to some modern humans, yet
Lubenow is able to conclude that KP 271 is "strikingly
close" [his italics] to modern humans, while the upper
humerus is only "quite similar, based on visual
assessment".

Lubenow's claim that the lower humerus is "relatively
easy to discriminate between humans and other primates" is
incorrect. Patterson and Howells say that "it is difficult
to identify family from only the distal end of the hominoid
humerus". Most of the measurements they used had
considerable overlap between humans and chimps. Because of this,
they were forced to use multivariate analysis, but even this
advanced statistical technique was not able to completely
distinguish human and chimp populations. Because the lower
humerus is such a poor diagnostic indicator, it was premature to claim
that KP 271 can not be an australopithecine fossil.

The claim that KP 271 was human has been one of the stronger
creationist arguments because, although it had not been proven,
neither was it demonstrably wrong (unlike almost every other
creationist argument about human evolution). However a recent
paper now strongly indicates that KP 271 is an australopithecine
and not a human fossil.

Lague and Jungers (1996) conducted an extensive study of the
lower humeri of apes, humans, and hominid fossils. They used
multivariate analysis, a technique which is highly praised by
creationists when it delivers results favorable to them. Lague
and Jungers' results show convincingly that KP 271 lies well
outside the range of human specimens. Instead, it clusters with a
group of other hominid fossils so strongly that the probability
that it belongs to the human sample, rather than fossil hominid
group, is less than one thousandth (0.001). They conclude:

"The specimen is therefore reasonably attributable to
A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995), although the
results of this study indicate that the Kanapoi specimen is
not much more "human-like" than any of the other
australopithecine fossils, despite prior conclusions to the
contrary" (Lague and Jungers 1996)

Fontechevade Man: a skullcap
fragment which is difficult to classify, and whose dating is
doubtful, it is probably also an archaic H. sapiens.

Swanscombe Man: two cranium fragments
discovered in 1935 and 1936 by Alvan Marston in England, and a
third fragment, discovered in 1955, which fit with the earlier
ones. The bones are very thick, with a mixture of primitive and
modern features, and an estimated brain size of 1325 cc. They are
probably from an archaic Homo sapiens, a view compatible
with their estimated age of 200,000 to 300,000 years (Day 1986).
(Creationist Jack Cuozzo claims to have found further parts of the
Swanscombe fossil; follow this link for a response.)

Vertesszollos Man: a few tooth
fragments and part of an adult cranium found in Hungary. The
cranial fragment is very thick and broad, with a mixture of
modern and primitive features. This is also considered to be
probably an archaic sapiens. This would match its age,
which has variously been estimated to be from 160,000 to over
350,000 years. (Day 1986)

Olmo Skull: a modern skullcap discovered in
1883 at Olmo in Italy. Later tests gave an age consistent with
this of between 50 and 75 thousand years. (Conrad 1982)

Of the other "anomalous" hominid fossils, most are
of fossil humans that have since been discovered to be
intrusions, i.e. they have been buried in deposits that are older
than they are. Examples are:

Abbeville, or Moulin Quignon, Jaw:
discovered by Jacques Boucher de Perthes in 1863 at Abbeville in
France. This was a modern-looking jaw that had come from very old
deposits. However because of strong evidence that it was a modern
jaw that had been "planted", probably by de Perthes'
workmen, who were paid for good finds, few scientists have ever
accepted it as genuine. (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992)

Oldoway Man: a complete skeleton found
by Hans Reck at Olduvai Gorge in 1913. In 1932 it was shown to be
a modern Homo sapiens, buried 20,000 years ago in older
deposits that had been exposed by faulting (Johanson and Shreeve
1989). Taylor (1992) writes "Some have suggested this
skeleton is an intrusive burial", when in fact this
explanation has been unanimously accepted (even by Reck and the
notoriously stubborn Louis Leakey). Bowden (1981) disputes this,
as Reck had originally claimed the skeleton could not be an
intrusive burial because of the undisturbed layers above it. It
was later shown, however, that the layer above the skeleton had
been misidentified by Reck, and instead of being very old, had
been laid down recently, after the skeleton had been buried
(Morell 1995). The completeness of the skeleton and its
contracted position were also consistent with a burial rather
than a natural fossilization.

Kanjera Man, Kanam Jaw: discovered by
Louis Leakey near Lake Victoria in 1932, and claimed by him to be
very old and anatomically modern human ancestors. The Kanjera
skull fragments were later shown to be modern humans buried
in older sediments. The Kanam jaw may be very old, but is not as modern
as Leakey thought. (Morell 1995)

Castenedolo Man: Morris and Parker
(1982) say "Fossils of ordinary people in Mid-Tertiary rock
[i.e. tens of millions of years old; the actual date is about 1.5
million years] were found in Castenedolo, Italy back in the late
1800's ...". According to Boule, an official report on these skeletons in 1899
noted that all the fossils from the deposit were impregnated with
salt, except the human ones. This implies that they are from
relatively recent burials. Collagen tests in 1965 and radiocarbon
dating in 1969 confirmed this. (Conrad 1982)
Cremo and Thompson, in their book Forbidden Archeology, claim that the original
documents in fact do not support the claim of intrusive burial (see here). Not being able to obtain the original
literature I can neither confirm nor deny this, though I do not have a
lot of faith in the scholarship of Cremo and Thompson (see a review of their book here). Whatever the details,
I find the modern tests conducted on the bones more convincing than ancient reports at second-hand.

Guadeloupe Man: W. Cooper claimed in
1983 that a modern skeleton found on Guadeloupe in 1812 had been
dated at 25 million years old, in the Miocene period. The
excellent condition of the skeleton, and the fact that it had
originally been found with other skeletons (all pointing in the
same direction) along with a dog and some implements, indicate
that it was a recent burial. In addition, it has never been
claimed to be from Miocene deposits by anyone except Cooper.
(Howgate and Lewis 1984)

Galley Hill Man: this was a
modern-looking skeleton discovered in 1888 in old deposits. Even
last century, many thought it was a modern human, and this was
confirmed in 1948 when it was fluorine dated (Trinkaus and
Shipman 1992).

Foxhall Jaw: this anatomically modern jaw was
reportedly found by farm labourers in 1855, 16 feet below the surface of a
pit. It passed through a number of hands to Thomas Collyer, who met with
considerable skepticism in his attempts to claim that it was of great
antiquity. The whereabouts of the jaw are no longer known.

Calaveras
Man: this was a modern skull discovered in 1866 in California
in Pliocene deposits (2 to 5 million years old). A few scientists
did believe it genuine, but it was always widely considered to be
a hoax. Personal testimonies and geological evidence indicate
that it is probably a modern Indian found in nearby limestone
caves, and that it was planted as a practical joke by miners.
Tests have shown it to be recent, probably less than 1000 years
old. (Dexter 1986; Taylor et al. 1992; Conrad 1982)

Meister Man: this was a rock, discovered in 1968
by creationist William Meister, which showed the outline or a shoe or
sandal with a trilobite embedded in it. According to mainstream geology,
trilobites went extinct long before man appeared. The print showed none of
the criteria by which genuine prints can be recognized, and the approximate
footlike shape can be explained by normal geological processes. (Strahler
1987, see also Glen Kuban's article on The Meister
Print)

Moab Man: two green-stained partial skeletons were
found in 1971 near Moab in Utah. Creationists have claimed that they were
found in a Mesozoic (over 65 million years old) rock formation, but
testimony from the anthropologist who helped excavate them shows that they
were in loose sand, and partly decayed and not at all fossilized. He
thought that they were probably Indian bones of recent origin. The
skeletons were later bought by creationist Carl Baugh,
who named them as a new species, Humanus Bauanthropus (Strahler 1987). A
recent comprehensive article on the Moab Man skeletons (Coulam and Schroedl
1995) convincingly demonstrates that the skeletons are most probably the
remains of prehistoric azurite miners who were buried in the formation,
either deliberately or as a result of a mining accident. (See also Glen Kuban's article on Moab
Man)

Malachite Man: more recently, creationist Don
Patton has claimed that the discovery of a number of
malachite-encrusted skeletons between 1990 and 1996
is evidence that humans existed long
before they were supposed to. It turned out that some of the photos of
Malachite Man on his website were identical to photos that were
published of the Moab Man skeletons in the
February 1975 issue of Desert Magazine.
(For more information, visit The Life and Death of Malachite Man, by Glen Kuban.) Since then, the
website has been changed to distinguish between the two finds.
There is as yet no published material on these skeletons, but the fact that they
were found in the same copper mine as the Moab Man skeletons suggests
that they are also recent.

Freiburg Skull: Whitcomb and Morris
(1961) claim that a skull stored at Freiburg in Germany is far
older than evolutionary theory would allow. Creationist Wayne
Frair has shown it to be a fake, molded out of pieces of brown
coal (Frair 1993).

Paluxy River: it has been widely claimed
by creationists that fossil human footprints have been found
alongside dinosaur footprints at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose,
Texas. Parker (1982), for example, claimed that they "are
much more obviously human" than the Laetoli
footprints. Scientists showed that many of them were
indistinct or infilled dinosaur prints. Some other supposed
footprints are either erosional features or, in a few cases (such
as the Burdick
footprint shown at right (Whitcomb and Morris 1961)), carvings. In 1984 the
dinosaurian origin of many of the "better" prints was
dramatically confirmed when Glen Kuban and Ron Hastings found
color markings which preserved the outline of three-toed dinosaur
feet. Although there have been some insinuations that these
markings could be artificial stains, core samples show that they
were caused by an infilling of secondary sediment into the
prints. This evidence has caused most creationists to abandon the
Paluxy footprints, although claims about them continue to
circulate. For further details read Kuban
(1996), or Strahler (1987). (See also Kuban's web site on the
Paluxy River controversy at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html.)

Kow Swamp: Henry Morris has claimed (1974) that since
10,000 year old Homo erectus skulls were found at Kow
Swamp in Australia, erectus cannot be the ancestor of
modern man. The logic is faulty, since there is no reason that a
population of erectus could not have survived long after Homo
sapiens first appeared. Morris also has his facts wrong.
Characteristics of the Kow Swamp skulls led to suggestions that
some Homo erectus _features_ had survived in them, as the
quote Morris gives from Thorne and Macumber (1972) clearly
states. Morris' claim that they are erectus _skulls_ is
incorrect. It is now thought that the most prominent such
primitive feature, flattened foreheads, may have been caused by
the cultural practice of head-binding (Day 1986; Gamble 1993).

Lubenow (1992) argues that the Kow Swamp skulls (and some
other similar Australian skulls) are very similar to H.
erectus and should be classified as that species, and that
the pathological or cultural causes suggested for their unusual
shape could equally well be applied to explain the features of H.
erectus skulls. Lubenow gives a list of 16 diagnostic
characteristics of H. erectus and claims that the Kow
Swamp skulls fit them well. Peter Brown
(pers.comm., 1996) disagrees strongly and shows that the Kow
Swamp skulls differ markedly from H. erectus, and that
Lubenow's characteristics do not apply to them (Brown is an
Australian paleoanthropologist who has studied the skulls).
Kennedy (1984) shows that the femurs of the Kow skeletons are
identical to those of modern humans, and significantly distinct
from those of those of H. erectus. Other scientists would
also dispute that the Kow Swamp skulls are H. erectus:

"There is no doubt that all the people who have ever
lived on the continent [Australia] would qualify as
anatomically modern humans" (Gamble 1993)

"Analysis of these skeletons has shown conclusively
that all are of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens."
(Burenhult 1993)

Scientists now generally accept that the Kow Swamp skulls were
artifically deformed. This conclusion is based on the work of
Brown (1981), who performed comparisons of normal and deformed
Melanesian skulls. The Kow Swamp skulls show the same signs of
deformation that are found in the Melanesian skulls, and these signs are not found in Homo erectus.
Most obviously, cranial deformation causes a very high cranial
vault, whereas H. erectus has a very low cranial vault.

"Extremely startling, and a fact very difficult for
evolutionists to assimilate, was Louis Leakey's claim that he
had found the remains of a circular stone habitation hut at
the bottom of Bed I. Deliberate manufacture of such shelters
has long been attributed only to Homo sapiens, and can
be observed in Africa today."

Gish then asks how australopithecines can be the ancestor of habilis,
or habilis of erectus, if they are all found
together? And how could erectus be the ancestor of modern
man, if traces of modern man are found below it?

Secondly, there is no evidence that the stone circle was a
hut, or that it was so advanced that it could only be attributed
only to H. sapiens, as claimed by Gish. Louis Leakey
claimed that it may have been no more than a windbreak, and so
rudimentary that he saw no difficulty in believing that H.
habilis could have made it:

"The recent discovery of a rough circle of loosely
piled stones on the living floor at site D.K. I, in the lower
part of Bed I, is noteworthy. ... It seems that the early
hominids of this period were capable of making rough shelters
or windbreaks, and it is likely that Homo habilis may
have been responsible." (Leakey et al. 1964)

Thirdly, most scientists now agree that the circle is not an
artifact. It is only a rough arrangement, and could have just as
easily have been formed by water or other natural forces.
(Johanson and Shreeve 1989; Tattersall 1993)